page 429 Language Arts, Volume 91 Number 6, July 2014 T he broad, yet undeined, emphasis on tech- nology in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts poses particular challenges for educators charged with the Standards’ implementation. The current bare-bones deinitions of “technology” in the Standards leave substantial room for interpretation; as we write, educators and researchers around the country are exploring and expanding on its potential mean- ings. Our goal in this column is neither to simply list what technology looks like in the new Standards (though we will do that briely), nor to critique the CCSS for not going nearly far enough (others are doing this very well, as you will see in the blogs we have listed in the online resources section of this column). Rather, it is to map some of the ways “technology” has been interpreted and emphasized in CCSS implementation thus far, and then to sug- gest potential areas for research. To create this map, we have applied the four resources model (Luke & Freebody, 1999) to the interpretations of technol- ogy in the Standards. The model suggests that peo- ple draw on four distinct resources as they read and write in the world, and, in order to use the model to discuss the Common Core, we briely review the resources here as they relate to technology (Luke & Freebody, 1999; see also Janks, 2010): Coding competence: The ability to decode words, including knowledge of alphabet letters and sounds, of standard conventions of print, of keyboard layout and keyboarding, etc. Pragmatic competence: The ability to use texts to get things done; for example, to know and act on the functions of different texts, including Internet websites and Internet resources. Semantic competence: The ability to make meaning from and with texts; to do so digitally, in word documents and in multimedia composition programs. Critical competence: The ability to critique and analyze texts, and to redesign new print and digital texts (sometimes as part of that critique); the knowledge that texts are never neutral but always embody particular points of view. We engaged in a close reading of the Stan- dards, looking for each of these competencies. As we show below, we found technology was most often visible as pragmatic and semantic competen- cies. We discuss these perspectives, as well as the troubling lack of attention to coding and critical competencies. A Reading of the Common Core with the Four Resources Model Technology (Not) as Coding Competence If we look closely, we see that some deinitions of technology in the Common Core State Standards implicitly demand that students develop coding competencies. For instance, basic typing is a coding matter (keyboard knowledge, space bar usage, etc.), as is the ability to read and navigate Internet web- sites (how to click, scroll, swipe, etc.). Some of the important coding competencies of today look dif- ferent from those of the past (witness the waning of Research and Policy A Four Resources Analysis of Technology in the CCSS Jessica Zacher Pandya and Maren Aukerman Copyright © 2014 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.